alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.4**

**THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

**THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 24th day of February, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Spectrum Brands, Inc. (“the “Company”) andKent J. Hussey (the “Executive”). 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive previously entered into an Amendedand Restated Employment Agreement, dated April 1, 2005, as amended by that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of June 29, 2007 (together, the “Agreement”); and 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive wish to amend certain provisions of the Agreement in recognition of the Executive’s pastservices to the Company and the importance to the future success of the Company of the Executive’s continued services; and 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements contained herein (promises that include benefits to which the Executive would not otherwise be entitled), and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows: 

1. Capitalized Terms not defined hereinshall have the meanings given those terms in the Agreement. 

2. As of the Effective Date, Executive’s Base Salary was Eight Hundred andTwenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($825,000) per annum (the “Existing Base Salary Amount”). For the period from March 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 (the “Temporary Reduction Period”), Executive’s Base Salary shallbe Seven Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($783,750) per annum. As of January 1, 2010, Executive’s Base Salary shall return to the Existing Base Salary Amount. Notwithstanding this temporary reduction inBase Salary, for purposes of calculating any Bonus or other incentive plan amounts or any other benefit specified in the Employment Agreement or any other agreement between the Company and the Executive, including, without limitation, any severancebenefits included therein, earned during the Temporary Reduction Period the Existing Base Salary Amount shall be used as the Base Salary. 

3.Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect, and the execution of this Amendment shall not affect the rights of the Company or the Executive under the terms of the Agreement as in effect immediately prior tothe Effective Date with respect to events occurring before the Effective Date. 

**[Signature Page Follows]**

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date firstabove written. 

 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC

/s/ John T. Wilson
By:    John T. Wilson, Vice President, Secretary and General CounselEXECUTIVE:
/s/ Kent J. Hussey
Name: Kent J. Hussey
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Nuveen Exchange-Traded Funds

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of each of the Nuveen Exchange-Traded Funds listed in Exhibit
A attached hereto (the "Funds") for the year ended July 31,
2000, we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, and not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing
and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess
the expected benefits and related costs of internal control.
Generally, internal controls that are relevant to an audit pertain
to the entity's objective of preparing financial statements for
external purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.  Those internal
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition.


Because of inherent limitations in any internal control,
misstatements due to errors or fraud may occur and not be
detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods are subject to the risk that internal control may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is
a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the specific internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding securities,
and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses as
defined above as of July 31, 2000.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the
Board of Directors and management of the Nuveen Exchange-
Traded Funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.



    ERNST & YOUNG LLP
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 8, 2000

Exhibit A


Nuveen Arizona Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Michigan Quality Income Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Michigan Premium Income Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Ohio Quality Income Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Texas Quality Income Municipal Fund, Inc.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: MOISES GALVAN,

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00096-CR

Appeal from the

168th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20170D00969)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement No. 333-31536 of Monarch Services, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated June 24, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Monarch Services, Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2005.


                                         /s/  Stegman & Company


July 27, 2005
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-066 

Effective Date: 11/30/2015 

Revision No. 0 

Huntington Pilot Plant Page 1 of 2 

Author: Signature on file 

Dave Allen, HP Team Leader

 Date: 11/30/2015 Supersedes: None 

Approval: Signature on file Date: 11/30/2015 

 J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE EFFECTIVE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION

AUTHORIZATION DATE

DATE

New document to determine the effect of 

11/30/2015 11/30/2015 0 the revision to DCAS-TKBS-0004, 

(Huntington Pilot Plant) on previously 

completed claims.

1.0 Description

Dose reconstructions for the claims from the Huntington Pilot Plant (also known as the 

Reduction Pilot Plant) were originally performed using ORAUT-TKBS-0004 that was 

issued on 10/31/2003. Revision 1 to that document was subsequently issued on 

1/16/2004. On 9/28/2007, OCAS-PER-025 was issued to assess the effect of the changes 

made in revision 1 on previously completed dose reconstructions. On 8/13/2008, OCASTKBS-0004 revision 0 was issued to supersede ORAUT-TKBS-0004. DCAS-PER-033 

was issued on 12/9/2011 to assess the effect of that change. DCAS-TKBS-004 revision 1 

was issued on 12/12/2013 to supersede revision 0. This PER (DCAS-PER-066) 

evaluated the effect of revision 1 to DCAS-TBKS-004 on all previously completed 

claims.

2.0 Issue Evaluation 

Revision 1 of DCAS-TKBS-0004 added intakes for Am-241, Th-230 and Tc-99. That 

results in an increased internal dose estimate for all claims that were completed using an 

earlier version. Therefore, it was not necessary to itemize any other increases in dose or 

further breakdown the time periods affected. 

3.0 Plan for Resolution or Corrective Action

In order to evaluate the effect of revision 1 of the TBD on all previously completed 

claims, a search was conducted for all completed claims with verified employment at the 

Huntington Pilot Plant that had a probability of causation (POC) of less than 50%. This 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Plan 

Document Number: DCAS-PER-066 

Effective Date: 11/30/2015 Revision No. 0 Page 2 of 2

search identified 59 claims. Two of these claims had been completed using revision 1 of 

the TBD and were removed from further evaluation. 

A new dose estimate was performed for the remaining 57 claims using revision 1 of the 

TBD, as well as all other applicable approved dose reconstruction methods. The 

resulting probability of causation (POC) was below 45% for 55 claims. The two 

remaining claim resulted in a POC between 45% and 50%. For those claims, IREP was 

run 30 times at 10,000 iterations per NIOSH procedures. The resulting POC remained 

below 50% for both claims. 

NIOSH will provide the Department of Labor with the list of all claims evaluated under 

this PER. Since none would now result in a POC greater than 50%, NOSH will not 

request the return of any of the claims.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 21.1

                          Significant Subsidiaries of
                           Balanced Care Corporation

BCC Development and Management Co.
BCC Investment Corporation
BCC at Kingston II, Inc.
BCC at Kingston, Inc.
BCC at Blakely, Inc.
BCC at Bloomsburg, Inc.
Balanced Care at Butler, Inc.
BCC at Mid-Valley, Inc.
BCC at State College, Inc.
BCC at Mt. Royal Pines, Inc.
Balanced Care at North Ridge, Inc.
BCC at Darlington, Inc.
Balanced Care at Eyers Grove, Inc.
Balanced Care at Saxonburg, Inc.
Balanced Care at Stafford, Inc.
Balanced Care at Bloomsburg II, Inc.
TC Realty of Altoona, Inc.
TC Realty of Lewistown, Inc.
TC Realty of Reading, Inc.
TC Realty of Berwick, Inc.
Black Box of Peckville, Inc.
TC Realty Corporation III
Balanced Care at Martinsburg, Inc.
Balanced Care at Maumelle, Inc.
Balanced Care at Mountain Home, Inc.
Balanced Care at Sherwood, Inc.
TC Realty Corporation II
**Exhibit 99.6**

**Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350            of**

**Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as            adopted**

**pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of            2002**

In            connection with the annual report of ARC Energy Trust ("ARC") on Form 40-F/A for the            fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange            Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Dielwart, President and Chief            Executive Officer of ARC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted            pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| 1. | The Report (as amended by this Amendment No. 1) fully                        complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                        Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | The information contained in the Report (as amended by this                        Amendment No. 1) fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial                        condition and results of operations of ARC. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| signed*"John P.                        Dielwart"* |
|---------------------------------------------------|

Name:            John P. Dielwart

Title:            President and Chief Executive Officer

December 3, 2007
#### STATE v. HOBBS

No. 15 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 380.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 April 1980.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.38

         General Description of Nationwide Economic Value Incentive Plan

     Nationwide established the Nationwide Economic Value Incentive Plan (the
"NEV Plan") in 2001 to encourage the senior officers of Nationwide to increase
their focus on financial and growth strategies that enhance the overall economic
value of the enterprise and transcend specific business/staff units. Under the
NEV Plan, which is administered by the Nationwide Mutual Human Resources
Committee and the Chief Executive Officer, designated officers and management
employees of the participating companies are eligible to receive annual awards
based on the sustained achievement of measures tied to the overall economic
value of the enterprise and the performance of the participant. Under the NEV
Plan, the participants are granted a target incentive amount at the beginning of
each year that represents a percentage of the participant's base salary or a
specific dollar amount. At the end of each year, the actual Nationwide Economic
Value ("NEV"), determined based on the criteria established in advance, is
compared to the target NEV level established for the year, and an initial annual
award level is determined for each participant. The Chief Executive Officer may
then adjust 25% of each participant's initial annual award level based on his
evaluation of the participant's performance. The result is the participant's
final annual award amount, which has no minimum or maximum value and can be
positive or negative.

     Annual award amounts for each participant, whether positive or negative,
will be credited to each participant's account ("NEV Plan Account"). Following
the determination of a participant's annual award amount and its credit to the
NEV Plan Account, one third of any positive balance maintained in the
participant's NEV Plan Account will be credited to a deferred compensation
account maintained for the participant. The participant is eligible to receive
distributions from the deferred compensation account upon termination of
employment. The remaining two-thirds of any positive balance in a participant's
NEV Plan Account, or the entire negative balance, is retained as the initial
balance in that account for the following year. NEV Plan Account balances are
subject to increases or decreases depending on future annual award amounts.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
CurrencyShares® South African Rand Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

Date: September 9, 2010



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph Arruda                                    
|Joseph
Arruda*                                       
|Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is
a trust and Joseph Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Media Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dean Li, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated:  February
12, 2010








By:       /s/Dean
Li


Dean
Li


President, Chief
Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10
                                                                      ----------

                                LETTER OF CONSENT

TO:      United States Securities and Exchange Commission

RE:      ARC ENERGY TRUST - ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 40-F

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and our report dated
February 5, 2004 evaluating ARC Energy Trust's petroleum and natural gas
reserves as at January 1, 2004, as described in the Annual Report on Form 40-F
of ARC Energy Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1932, as amended, and the inclusions of information derived from
our report.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          GILBERT LAUSTSEN JUNG ASSOCIATES LTD.


                                          /s/ James H. Willmon, P.Eng.
                                          ----------------------------
                                          James H. Willmon, P. Eng.
                                          Vice-President


Calgary, Alberta
Date:  April 20, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

1090 Tusculum Avenue

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938

Phone: 513-533-6825

Fax: 513-533-6826

June 23, 2015 

SEC Tracking Number: SEC00216 

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321 

Washington, District of Columbia 20210 

Dear Ms. Leiton:

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from the Dow Chemical Company in Pittsburg, CA, as an addition to the Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000. On May 21, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. §7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS 

designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

“All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked for Dow Chemical Company in 

Pittsburg, California, from October 1, 1947, through June 30, 1957, for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes 

of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.” 

This designation became effective on June 20, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. §7384l(14)(C). 

Therefore, beginning on June 20, 2015, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in 

this notice, became members of the SEC. 

Sincerely,

[Signature on File] 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1527

___________

Matthew M. Tensley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Herb Maschner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 12, 2001

 Filed: April 20, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

An Iowa jury found Matthew M. Tensley guilty of eight burglary offenses and

one assault based on a series of residential burglaries committed in Davenport in the

summer of 1992. After the Iowa courts affirmed Tensley’s convictions and denied him

postconviction relief, he initiated this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. As relevant

to this appeal, he claimed that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing
1The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

to object to, and to have recorded, the prosecutor’s allegedly improper closing

argument. The district court1 denied relief, Tensley appeals, and we affirm.

Following careful review, see Forest v. Delo, 52 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 1995),

we agree with the district court that Tensley’s claim of ineffective assistance fails

because he did not demonstrate he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient

performance, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94 (1984). The trial

evidence of Tensley’s guilt was strong, and the jury was properly instructed after the

alleged prosecutorial misconduct occurred. See Kellogg v. Skon, 176 F.3d 447, 451-52

(8th Cir. 1999) (during closing argument, prosecutor misstated law by saying

presumption of innocence had been “removed,” and improperly made personal

expressions concerning defendant’s culpability; nevertheless, remarks did not make

entire trial fundamentally unfair, jury was properly instructed, and weight of evidence

was heavy; ineffectiveness claim based on failure to object to prosecutor’s improper

comments failed for lack of demonstrable prejudice); Roberts v. Bowersox, 137 F.3d

1062, 1066 (8th Cir. 1998) (prosecutorial misconduct does not warrant federal habeas

relief unless misconduct infected trial with enough unfairness to render conviction a

denial of due process), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1073 (1999).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.